Hmm, I always trust my inner instincts, and right now, they tell me that "tls" has something to do with encryption. Perhaps they made an encrypted version of C lib to prevent trojans and stuff and that added to the time programs run ?
Makes sence to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: Redhat 9 slowness - continued > A few days ago, somebody complained about KDE being slower on Redhat 9 > than it was in earlier versions. I don't know if my experience is related, > but it confirms something bizarre is going on in Redhat 9. > > I just switched from a Pentium 500Mhz running Redhat 8, to a Pentium 1500 > running Redhat 9. > > Remember how Hspell 0.5 took ages to run, and Hspell 0.6 is much much faster > to start up? Well, being in love with that fact ( ;)) I wanted to see just > how quickly it runs on my new fast machine. On my old machine, it took it > 0.3 seconds to start up (hspell /dev/null). I expected it to take 0.1 seconds > (CPU time) to start on the new computer, but... It still took 0.3 seconds! > > I started cursing the fake CPU I probably have on the new machine, and > the bugs I probably have in Hspell, before I had an epiphany: what if > some dynamic-linking issues slowed hspell's running, and it wasn't hspell > itself which is slow? > > So I recomiled hspell staticly (-static, i.e., without shared libraries) > on both machines. Lo and behold, Hspell now takes just 0.23 seconds on > the old machine, and 0.095 seconds on the new machine. > > So, apparently, on Redhat 8 the dynamic linking added 21% to > "hspell /dev/null"'s static running time, while on Redhat 9, the > dynamic linking added 200% (!!!) to the running time of the static > program. In absolute terms, 0.2 extra CPU seconds were wasted on > Redhat 9, and this is on my new fast machine - on an old machine the > added time would have been enormous. > > But why is this happening? And why does it effect hspell, and not, say > "cat /dev/null"? > > One thing I noticed is that when I do "ldd" to hspell (or cat, or anything), > I don't get /lib/i686/... like I got in Redhat 8 - instead I get some > /lib/tls/.... What is that? setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /lib/i686 made > hspell very speedy again - 0.12 seconds - back to the acceptable 20% > overhead for dynamic linking. > > Does anybody know what these "tls" version of the C library are? Why > are they so much slower to load? Or is there another explanation to the > problems I'm seeing? > > Thanks for any insights, > Nadav. > > > -- > Nadav Har'El | Saturday, Nov 8 2003, 14 Heshvan 5764 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- > Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Seen on the back of a dump truck: > http://nadav.harel.org.il |<---PASSING SIDE . . . . . SUICIDE---> > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
